Playing a character instead of playing a class

[wraithstrike]

Simon Legrande wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?

Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?

Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.

It took me about 2 seconds to get the idea of letting people progress in their own class. It is not like the GM has to come up with a feat, spell, and so on just to even this out.

"ok, you have levels in _____"<---Done.

edit: and nobody has to go without getting something. See how easy that was.

And how does the GM give the player those levels. The other players have to hunt for some ancient relics to use, does this one guy get them by GM fiat?

What if the guy doesn't want the GM affecting his character at all? Is it the GM's job to make the guy take something just to keep up?

No quest is needed. Make the item do what the players want it to do based on what class they want.

Personally I dont see a difference between leveling up between by XP and a magic item as long as everyone does it at the same time. In that case the GM is not forcing anything on the player from my point of view, so unless the player is just not understanding the GM I dont see that taking place.

[Renvale987]

I thank everyone for their replies, but I've decided against doing it. I'm being a bit railroady and I realize that. The response was amazing and its one of the reasons I love this community.

Anyway, again, thanks for replies. If you wish to continue to talk about it, I'm okay with that too!

[thejeff]

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.

The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.

[wraithstrike]

Simon Legrande wrote:

Personally, if I like nuts and I'm doing all the work, then the allergic guy is SOL.

You might be doing "all the work", but if this small portion of your work is no more than pouring a glass of milk then I don't see the need to be so difficult about it especially if you are doing all of the work by your own choice, and not because nobody is willing/able to help.

[Renvale987]

thejeff wrote:

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.

The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.

We had a mythic game and I've found, along with my players, that mythic spell-casting is completely broken. I don't want to get into that debate here, but we will never run a mythic game again, due to the unbalance.

I've been racking my brain to try and find something to give flavor to the campaign. The characters are descendants of Karsus, the de-facto Arch-Mage of Faerun. They've found his scroll-case, and I'm debating on letting them find his other items as well.

I'm firm believer that the PC's should be unique but not overpowered. Mythic is OP, but I think maybe powerful magic items, given few and far between and accounted for when making encounters, can make the PC's feel awesome; Hey look, I have Karsus's so and so thing-a-majig and you don't.

[wraithstrike]

Renvale987 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.

The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.

We had a mythic game and I've found, along with my players, that mythic spell-casting is completely broken. I don't want to get into that debate here, but we will never run a mythic game again, due to the unbalance.

I've been racking my brain to try and find something to give flavor to the campaign. The characters are descendants of Karsus, the de-facto Arch-Mage of Faerun. They've found his scroll-case, and I'm debating on letting them find his other items as well.

I'm firm believer that the PC's should be unique but not overpowered. Mythic is OP, but I think maybe powerful magic items, given few and far between and accounted for when making encounters, can make the PC's feel awesome; Hey look, I have Karsus's so and so thing-a-majig and you don't.

If you run them against non-mythic monsters they will curb stomb them.

With regard to your situation you can post each class/character and give them each something unique from some idea on the boards here.

[MattR1986]

Imo having something that insta gives you four levels iust stupid. That's a pretty insane item. I don't think id ever use thatfor balance and flavor reasons. The only wzy id use it would be specifically for a non caster likne how elminster went from a theif to a wizard (sort of). Derp de doo what's this say? Wa BAM. Giving him caster levels won't break the game like a 6th level party now having a 10th level wizard. It would greatly affect encounters. If I did this would I custom put one scroll for each class of the pcs? Uh no. That's equally stupid and breaking immersion
.
Btw, the dm does things to your precious pc all the time. He takes away hp with damage. He gives him the fatigued condition. He has him do things when under suggestion. He has him take negative levels from undead. This idea that the player is solely your dominion is an entitled falsehood and you could only be so lucky that this is the curse that happens to him: 4 FREE LEVELS you can likely customize how you want.

I would just have the players find ONE scroll that's obviously not a spell with ominous overtones like describing it tensely having a black dragon inscribed on it and words of warning in an ancient common they could all read. The one with the balls to read it gets 2-3 levels. Id do this at like at least 15th level when they could find something so rare and wouldn't matter as much. If players b@!+& remind them they didn't want to read it. No guts no glory as it just as easily could have been an item that took two levels or killed the pc.

[Sindalla]

Renvale987 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

That way they don't interfere with regular level gain and could provide a significant boost even if they only gave the arcane (Archmage?) version.

The arcane casters are still better off though, which suggests to me that it would be better not to restrict it.

We had a mythic game and I've found, along with my players, that mythic spell-casting is completely broken. I don't want to get into that debate here, but we will never run a mythic game again, due to the unbalance.

I've been racking my brain to try and find something to give flavor to the campaign. The characters are descendants of Karsus, the de-facto Arch-Mage of Faerun. They've found his scroll-case, and I'm debating on letting them find his other items as well.

I'm firm believer that the PC's should be unique but not overpowered. Mythic is OP, but I think maybe powerful magic items, given few and far between and accounted for when making encounters, can make the PC's feel awesome; Hey look, I have Karsus's so and so thing-a-majig and you don't.

You're worried about Mythic imbalance, but not +5 Wizard/Sorcerer levels imbalance?

An imbalance that affects not only your job, but the players group balance?

I could've sworn you said you could handle the increase in power by adjusting encounters in the original post?

Sorry if this comes across as rude, but I thought the mythic was actually a decent suggestion. 1 Rank of mythic is not that bad. I had an AoW group get TPK'd, and they had 1 mythic rank.

[Eirikrautha]

Ascalaphus wrote:

And I disagree about fairness. Pathfinder is meant to be fair, or at least fair enough. Where balance between PCs is meant to ensure everyone feels like a useful part of the group.

Balance between PCs is good for making the game fun.

What??? Have you actually played this game? Pathfinder may be many things, but it is certainly NOT "fair" (if we define fair as meaning equally powerful or balanced, as you seem to do above). The martial/caster disparity alone drives the stake into the heart of the equality-based fairness argument! Character balance (both class and optimization based) is the biggest topic of discussion on these boards... So I don't see how anyone could possibly even suggest that Pathfinder is designed to be fair with a straight face.

Folks need to grow up. Not even individual modules are fair. When my friend plays his barbarian in a module that turns out to be primarily roleplay, is it fair (since he probably won't make a roll all night)? When he plays his skill-monkey bard with no offensive capability at all in a straight dungeon crawl, is this fair? Of course, because not every character or class will benefit equally from every event. Sometimes you're the star, and sometimes you're the sidekick. That's life (and Pathfinder).

I swear, this is what comes from all those years of rec-league kids' sports where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up. Now everyone has to be "special" all the time, or life's not fair *sniffle*! I always thought of The Incredibles as a cartoon, not a societal road map...

[Zhayne]

Yay ludicrous hyperbole.

A game is not life (unless you're actually playing The Game of Life).
A game is an escape from life, and games are supposed to be fair.
PF not being fair is not a feature, it's a problem.
This ridiculous 'Life isn't fair, so PF isn't' concept needs to die in a fire. It's beneath contempt.

[thejeff]

Eirikrautha wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

And I disagree about fairness. Pathfinder is meant to be fair, or at least fair enough. Where balance between PCs is meant to ensure everyone feels like a useful part of the group.

Balance between PCs is good for making the game fun.

What??? Have you actually played this game? Pathfinder may be many things, but it is certainly NOT "fair" (if we define fair as meaning equally powerful or balanced, as you seem to do above). The martial/caster disparity alone drives the stake into the heart of the equality-based fairness argument! Character balance (both class and optimization based) is the biggest topic of discussion on these boards... So I don't see how anyone could possibly even suggest that Pathfinder is designed to be fair with a straight face.

Folks need to grow up. Not even individual modules are fair. When my friend plays his barbarian in a module that turns out to be primarily roleplay, is it fair (since he probably won't make a roll all night)? When he plays his skill-monkey bard with no offensive capability at all in a straight dungeon crawl, is this fair? Of course, because not every character or class will benefit equally from every event. Sometimes you're the star, and sometimes you're the sidekick. That's life (and Pathfinder).

I swear, this is what comes from all those years of rec-league kids' sports where everyone gets a trophy just for showing up. Now everyone has to be "special" all the time, or life's not fair *sniffle*! I always thought of The Incredibles as a cartoon, not a societal road map...

And at the same time, we don't generally just give the wizard characters a few extra levels to emphasize the unfairness of it all.

Even if the other characters get the same caster levels, they're not going to be able to take as much advantage of them. Fighter 6/Wizard 4 is lousy build compared to Wizard 10, especially if you weren't planning on it and thus don't have the stats to take advantage of it. No bonus spells and low DCs most likely, even if have the stat to cast anything beyond cantrips in the first place.

The game isn't perfectly fair of course, but there's no need to twist the knife.

[Lord Mhoram]

thejeff wrote:

Just a thought: what about having the scrolls provide Mythic tiers, rather than regular caster levels?

I may take that idea. That these ancient artifacts of a very powerful fallen empire is what grants Mythic Ranks (in whatever path).

Nice flavor for Mythic that is not the normal approach.

[Ascalaphus]

Renvale987 wrote:

I thank everyone for their replies, but I've decided against doing it. I'm being a bit railroady and I realize that. The response was amazing and its one of the reasons I love this community.

Anyway, again, thanks for replies. If you wish to continue to talk about it, I'm okay with that too!

I'm a bit disappointed that you decided to blow the whole thing off instead of trying to find a solution that makes everyone happy.

As I tried to show before, this is only a big problem if the player gets a choice between reading the scroll or nothing.

If he can take the scroll and do something else with it, things change. He can trade it for something he does want. I'm sure that powerful wizards would give a lot for such a scroll.

[Wiggz]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.

A character who has chosen not to read the scrolls would be many levels behind a character who does.

That being said, I entirely agree with your post but you'd need something in line to ensure the anti-magic guy isn't falling behind the guy with the same HD but more levels. I'd talk it over with the player and see what we can come up with; first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of anti-magic boon where instead of reading the scroll and becoming a better caster you read the scroll and become better at killing casters. Stuff like spell sunder and whatnot.

I think this is an excellent idea. Tweak the scrolls by letting him advance as Fighter when they advance as a caster, and give him a special list of feats/abilities he can use his bonus feats on when he does - possibly even abilities he would otherwise not have access to like those anti-caster Rage feats. Enforce the pre-refs though so that he doesn't leap frog to any game breaking abilities too quickly.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Cevah wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

GMs are not storytellers. The entire group are storytellers, telling a cooperative story.

The character is the one part of the game the player truly has any control over, and should be given as much as possible. Messing with someone's character is a very fast way to tick a player off, and rightfully so.

It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.

I disagree. The story belongs to the GM, and the players make changes as collaborators. A minor difference, but I think worth noting.

The GM controls the setting. The players control the main characters. Neither role is all that much more important than the other—not enough to justify saying the story "belongs" to the GM. Especially when it means pressuring players to change their characters to be the way you prefer.

Simon Legrande wrote:

Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair.

Uh, it kind of is. It's a game. It's not life. Arguments about rogues aside, each player is meant to be given a fair shake. Since you're acknowledging here that one player isn't getting that, there is something wrong with this game.

[Rynjin]

Wiggz wrote:

give him a special list of feats/abilities he can use his bonus feats on when he does - possibly even abilities he would otherwise not have access to like those anti-caster Rage feats. Enforce the pre-refs though so that he doesn't leap frog to any game breaking abilities too quickly.

The funny part about this is that this is what those Rage Powers do.

Disruptive and Spellbreaker are Fighter only Feats you can get as Rage Powers, not the other way around.

[Kobold Catgirl]

And on the matter of playing a character instead of playing a class...they're not really that separate. Some examples:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Everybody gets demon-killing machine guns and jetpacks. Giles doesn't want one? Then he's gonna be sitting out a lot of missions that're too dangerous for him.

Avatar: The Last Airbender - Sokka gets bending powers. What? Half his character conflict is about struggling to keep up despite not being the sole non-bender on the team? Screw that, it's Sokka the Human Flamethrower time!

Game of Thrones - Joffrey becomes an unstoppable juggernaut. Oh, you say half of what makes us loathe him is how weak and impotent he really is? Don't care. Let's have him go beat up Jaime Lannister!

Class and abilities comprise a major part of any character's flavor. Anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

And in general, giving an uneven power boost like this is just unreasonable and unwise.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Renvale987 wrote:

I thank everyone for their replies, but I've decided against doing it. I'm being a bit railroady and I realize that. The response was amazing and its one of the reasons I love this community.

Anyway, again, thanks for replies. If you wish to continue to talk about it, I'm okay with that too!

Noticed this. Kudos, Renvale, for being willing to hear an answer. This might be the first time I saw someone post their opinion, hear different opinions, and revise their plan accordingly.

Okay. Back to yelling at each other.

[Sindalla]

DANGIT KOBOLD CLEAVER!!! I DON'T WANNA KEEP YELLING AT EACH OTHER!

/sarcasm, obviously

[Kobold Catgirl]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Suppose it's your birthday and you're baking a cake, and you want to use nuts. But one player is allergic to nuts. The others like nuts.

Wouldn't the nice thing be to offer him something else, instead of excluding him from cake or sending him to the hospital?

Or is that unfair to you, because you put effort into baking a nut cake?

Simon LeGrande wrote:

Personally, if I like nuts and I'm doing all the work, then the allergic guy is SOL. Yes, I really believe that. And I'd be sure to tell him up front so he could pick up his own dessert on the way over or just not come. I'm kind of sick of the minority (as in the lesser portion) dictating how everyone needs to act.

Yes, how dare those whiny allergic people expect the host to provide them with alternative food supplies. Next time I see my heavily allergic friend, I'm gonna pelt her with walnuts until she leaves. That'll teach 'em to oppress my minority of "inconsiderate jackasses"!

Sindalla wrote:

DANGIT KOBOLD CLEAVER!!! I DON'T WANNA KEEP YELLING AT EACH OTHER!

/sarcasm, obviously

BUT YOU'RE YELLING RIGHT NOW! THE IRONY IS UNMISTAKEABLE!

[LoneKnave]

Aaaactually, if they play with XP rules and he gets handed the correct amount of XP for encounters (as in getting more XP for being a level lower) he could possibly catch up in a few encounters (in extreme cases could even get a very small XP lead).

[Kobold Catgirl]

You don't actually get more XP for being a level lower in Pathfinder. You will level up faster, but you will always be behind.

[LoneKnave]

... You don't? Hmm.

Well, possible houserule to let him catch up then.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Which means we're back to "give him some alternative way to keep up", which certain posters are heavily against.

[thejeff]

Though actually, even without more XP for lower level, he'd come close catching up in levels.
If they were at 6th level and got a 4 level bump, he'd reach 12th while they were 12th. They'd still hit 13 before him, but the gap would be less and less of a full level.

Even mechanically, if you really wouldn't benefit from caster levels, it might be worth not taking them.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Of course, surviving when you're four levels behind is another matter. That's why uneven levels this bad are generally something that happen by accident, not deliberately. :P

[MattR1986]

And OP here is the issue with weapons like this and why I see a problem:

You are the controller of the game and the setting and everything in it, but the Players are the protagonists that carve the story out and where it goes. Theoretically they're all equal in importance like the Fantastic Four (or something? some group where they're equal?). When you have weapons like this you're essentially giving certain players Excalibur which more or less says "You're the main character and leader and they're your sidekicks". This works in a book for a good story, but in a game not as much.

This is beside the point of mechanics and number crunching of running into CR problems and "omg it hurts my optimization". It creates problems for the most important part: the story

[Kobold Catgirl]

Keep in mind, Mattr, the OP already decided earlier Paizonians were right and the scrolls were unfair.

That being said, I'd love to play a game where one PC is the "main character" and the rest are just followers. Of course, I generally prefer to play side-characters, soooo...

[thejeff]

Yeah, I've had this happen with weapons/artifacts even when the GM tried to give out something appropriate for everyone. This was back in 2E days and I was playing the cleric, but I was playing him as a dwarven warpriest. Healing, certainly, because it was 2E, but trying to focus more on fighting & self buffing than just on being the healer.

Everyone got cool, far too powerful items. I got a staff that made me the ultimate healbot. I could still fight, but it would almost always be far more effective just to heal. Balanced with the others, but not at all appropriate for what I wanted to play.

Even without the balance issues, handing someone who wanted to play a thug 4 levels of a caster class is a pretty serious twist on what they wanted to play.

[MattR1986]

I think you would be a rare few. I can't imagine finding a full group of players that would all want to be the Robin to someone's Batman. You're creating favoritism from the get-go and not to mention sidekicks are more expendable than the main hero. I don't even think I would want to attempt this. It would mean focusing on one player, building resentment from other players who thought they were ok with this concept and later realized they weren't, other players getting bored as the main character is spotlighted in most scenes etc.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Sidekicks are only more expendable in literature. You also don't have to focus more on the main guy. Just because he's the chief hero doesn't mean he gets more attention—it just means he's gonna be the one to deal the finishing blow to the dragon. There can still be sideplots about the other PCs (just like in Arthurian legends).

[MattR1986]

I'd also like to add giving someone 4 levels of something does not necessarily change anything. Besides the balance issue, if you are a AMBARBARIAN that barely qualifies for your wizard levels, no one is FORCING you to use that magic. I've had a wizard that was given a spellbook and items with necromatic spells. No one forced me to use them and I didn't use them for character reasons even though they were useful spells. Does anything even tell that you have wizard abilities? If anything it could add to your RP if you don't like magic as now you have a dark secret to keep and one of your goals is to rid your body of this magic.

[Kobold Catgirl]

The question is, though, how is the GM going to balance encounters if one member has four fewer hit dice? He's going to end up having to be protected to some extent for at least six levels.

[Eirikrautha]

Zhayne wrote:

Yay ludicrous hyperbole.

A game is not life (unless you're actually playing The Game of Life).
A game is an escape from life, and games are supposed to be fair.
PF not being fair is not a feature, it's a problem.
This ridiculous 'Life isn't fair, so PF isn't' concept needs to die in a fire. It's beneath contempt.

Uh, no.

First of all, after reading the post to which my response was directed (in addition to reading my post itself), someone may discover that I explained the definition of fair being used by the post was incorrect in this case. The post equated "fair" with "balanced (which I also equated with "equal"). And games are not "fair" under that definition. Anything that meets that definition cannot be a game.

Games may be "fair" in the sense that they have rules that apply equally to all. But they are not "fair" in the sense that they are balanced or that each participant can expect an equal outcome. Some games have winners and losers (there goes "fairness" right out the window). Games like Pathfinder have a myriad of choices. If the outcome of those choices are "balanced" (i.e. equal), then the choices are irrelevant. The "game" is meaningless because the choices are. Some choices in Pathfinder are going to lead to different outcomes, many of which are unbalanced. This is not balanced, not equal, and certainly not "fair." And it is the explicit design of the game.

So you can define fair as having rules that apply to every player, and I would agree that this is a key design feature of most games. But that's not what the post I was responding to was talking about. The word used was "balanced." And Pathfinder isn't (even the devs have said that the power differential in martials vs casters is a hold-over from earlier editions and not something they intend to change). Without the fundamental unfairness built into the rules based on player choices, there would be no game.

As this relates to the OP, a player certainly should have fun. But that does not mean the player is entitled to exactly the same materials/resources/abilities as other players. Sometimes he may get more, sometimes less. When a player's own decisions leads to a weaker character... that's not the GM's fault.

[MattR1986]

Eirikrautha wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Yay ludicrous hyperbole.

A game is not life (unless you're actually playing The Game of Life).
A game is an escape from life, and games are supposed to be fair.
PF not being fair is not a feature, it's a problem.
This ridiculous 'Life isn't fair, so PF isn't' concept needs to die in a fire. It's beneath contempt.

Uh, no.

First of all, after reading the post to which my response was directed (in addition to reading my post itself), someone may discover that I explained the definition of fair being used by the post was incorrect in this case. The post equated "fair" with "balanced (which I also equated with "equal"). And games are not "fair" under that definition. Anything that meets that definition cannot be a game.

Games may be "fair" in the sense that they have rules that apply equally to all. But they are not "fair" in the sense that they are balanced or that each participant can expect an equal outcome. Some games have winners and losers (there goes "fairness" right out the window). Games like Pathfinder have a myriad of choices. If the outcome of those choices are "balanced" (i.e. equal), then the choices are irrelevant. The "game" is meaningless because the choices are. Some choices in Pathfinder are going to lead to different outcomes, many of which are unbalanced. This is not balanced, not equal, and certainly not "fair." And it is the explicit design of the game.

So you can define fair as having rules that apply to every player, and I would agree that this is a key design feature of most games. But that's not what the post I was responding to was talking about. The word used was "balanced." And Pathfinder isn't (even the devs have said that the power differential in martials vs casters is a hold-over from earlier editions and not something they intend to change). Without the fundamental unfairness built into the rules based on player choices, there would be no game.

As this relates to the OP, a player certainly should have fun. But...

This is largely what I was talking about with fairness (and the chess example) but I was too lazy to articulate then. We could get into a whole argument of equal vs. equal opportunity and bring in Madison and Jefferson and everyone else, but I didn't want to open that can of worms.

Kleaver, I did say "besides the balance issue", which we've gone over before as the elephant in the room where there's a pretty large disparity of ability.

When I think about it for a moment I think one way to make this work is: With great power comes great responsibility. Have this thing only apply to the Wizard character, but balance it with something that makes his life far more difficult that the other players likely won't envy him. The BBEG is trying to kill him. When the group screws up, he gets blamed. A "heavy is the crown" situation (for the right type of players) could make an interesting dynamic.

[Kobold Catgirl]

But aren't the majority of PCs here gonna be the OP wizards? It's just one guy who doesn't want to.